House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Bills Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Carparking Requirements) Amendment Bill Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Carparking Requirements) Amendment Bill Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Carparking Requirements) Amendment Bill Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. A. PICCOLO House of Assembly Light The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (10:41): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. A. PICCOLO House of Assembly Light The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (10:42): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today, I introduce the car parking requirements bill to the house in order to rectify a problem that exists in many of our communities. Under the current development assessment system, suburban communities have experienced the congestion, inconvenience and lack of amenity that urban infill development has caused, specifically where developments have not been required to provide sufficient car parking for the needs of the residents. In recent years, we have witnessed development approvals for apartment blocks, townhouses and subdivisions, which have undercut the car parking requirements of councils' development plans through an on-merit development assessment process. This has delivered streets congested with parked cars and ruined streetscapes. Members who represent suburban electorates know the problem to which I refer, as I have had much feedback from local members of parliament. This issue is not confined to just the inner city suburbs but also new developments in areas right across the state. Both new developments, like Lightsview, and infill developments in the inner suburbs have been affected by this development. The car parking requirements included in this bill have been developed in response to the community sentiment many members have brought to my attention, which they have encountered through doorknocking and street corner community engagement. Moreover, the car parking requirements included in this bill have also been shaped by a long and thorough process of public consultation with key stakeholders in the planning, development and building industries, as well as representatives of resident and action groups. What we have heard loud and clear is that inadequate car parking provision is severely impacting on community wellbeing. The parked cars of residents are spilling out onto the streets, creating unwanted congestion adversely impacting on visitors, including carers and health professionals attempting to provide essential care to residents in densely developed neighbourhoods. Development should serve the community and the planning system should demand design standards that deliver community amenity. Unfortunately, the draft Planning and Design Code has not taken the opportunity to regulate car parking requirements which ensure that the parked cars of all residents do not spill out onto suburban streets. In the draft code, the requirement of two off-street car parks per dwelling does not apply until a threshold of three bedrooms is reached. This is inadequate to avoid on-street car parking congestion. The bill requires a second off-street car park at the threshold of two bedrooms because young children do not stay young for long. They grow, get a driver's licence and buy cars. I am sure members have noticed that in new developments. A criticism that has been raised against the bill is that it does not accommodate the take-up of public transport use or other more environmentally friendly modes of transport than private car use. My response to this criticism is that we must be flexible in how we deal with these problems today while intelligently planning for the future. The reality is that public transport use does not increase unless services are provided. I will give you an example. At a recent Public Works Committee meeting, I heard evidence given by departmental officials regarding public transport services to the new Lightsview development. I also heard from residents about how public transport is not being taken up. On the one hand, the department argues that public transport is not provided because people are not using it. On the other hand, people are not using public transport because it is actually not provided, so they are buying cars. We have this chicken and egg situation of what comes first but, in the end, what we have are congested streets. Having walked through Lightsview, as other members have, I know that all you have are streets that have actually become de facto car parks to the detriment of the amenity and the people who live there. The reality is that, despite many endeavours, private car use remains high and will remain high for some time unless a viable alternative is found. Public transport options must be convenient, accessible and frequent. We do not have that situation yet. Ride-sharing arrangements, including autonomous vehicles, may also prove popular at some time, but for how long must residents in congested suburban neighbourhoods have to wait for this reality? The bill does not seek to deal with all the challenges presented by urban infill development—that would be a discussion for another day and perhaps on another bill—but what it does provide is an immediate remedy to a burning community problem through statute, which cannot be overturned through a development assessment process. So what does this bill do? The objectives of the bill are to set a minimum of one car park on site per dwelling, regardless of description, like studio apartment, etc., and to provide a minimum of two on-site car parks for dwellings of two or more bedrooms. Where on-site car parking cannot be provided, car parking spaces can be contained in an off-street car parking site if the site is within 100 metres of the dwelling, providing some flexibility. Importantly, there is another element to this bill. If these conditions are not met, the development becomes classified as a restricted development, which includes public notification and appeal rights. This means it still can go ahead, but there are proper notification and appeal rights for neighbouring residents. That is the aim of the bill and I think it warrants support. I would urge all members concerned with the amenity and, importantly, the livability of our communities to support the bill. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pederick.